Comedy-wise, seasons 1 and 2 don't quite hit the marks that 3-9 do, but they're fine on every other level. I would consider 4-8 to be the absolute apex myself, though 1-9 all fall under the "classic era" label for me (and very few hardcore Simpsons fans would look at you weirdly for classing seasons 1 and 2 in the same league as 3-9, given what became of the show after that point).

I couldn't really see Futurama possibly getting as bad as The Simpsons did. I feel like "The Futurama Holiday Spectacular" is probably about as low as Futurama can get and that episode is still much better than the vast majority of Simpsons episodes from season 13, onwards.

I dunno, I kind of think that another season or two of Futurama would have outranked The Simpsons Seasons 13-present.

I think the worst Futurama could get is the equivalent of Seasons 11-12 of The Simpsons, meaning they could still produce a few good episodes and have one or two standouts throughout the season, despite a few stinkers being in there. I don't think it would ever get to the quality of Seasons 9-10 of The Simpsons again though. I could be wrong, obviously.

I just find it amazing that nobody has bothered to inject new life into the show for about 10 years.

In the show's prime, they used to have an unwritten rule that showrunning was like the presidency and nobody should serve more than two terms.

I honestly think that this was one of the biggest reasons that they show was able to thrive and remain so good for as long as it did.

Every showrunner brought something new to the table and they all built upon what was left before them.

Matt Groening, James L. Brooks and Sam Simon got the show up and running. Al Jean and Mike Reiss made it utterly hilarious. David Mirkin perfected it with even more interesting storylines and even funnier gags. Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein decided to explore the characters on a more real level, which gave seasons 7 and 8 quite a distinctive flavour, but helped to prevent it from going stale. Then Mike Scully came along and produced arguably the worst season to date, season 9. Fair enough though, season 9 was still very, very good stuff and so was season 10, but he made things veer towards being more cartoony and silly.

Now, if someone else had come along for seasons 11 and 12, they might have addressed problems with the show. But instead, Mike Scully kept on at it for two more seasons and then they hired Al Jean again, presumably in a desperate effort to get someone from the show's golden years who could fix things, but he only made them worse and it felt like everyone making the show just stopped caring. Al Jean has been showrunning it ever since.

I'd be genuinely excited if someone else was given the gig.

Imagine if they hired David X. Cohen to showrun seasons 26 and 27 now that he's done with Futurama. I'd be so pumped for that.

I honestly think that The Simpsons could be made good again. Maybe not up to the standards of the golden days, but I think they could easily produce something on par with seasons 1 and 2. They still have a handful of funny jokes here and there. If someone just chopped out all of the awful, awful jokes, leaving a very dry show with one or two good laughs per episode, I'd probably go for that. It'd be a bit like King of the Hill.

Guillermo Del Toro's opening sequence for "Treehouse of Horror XXIV" basically proved that the show's shitty quality is purely down to the people working on it by being so good.

They should at least look into hiring guest-directors for full episodes. I'd rather see great directors taking on episodes over another fucking celebrity guest appearance. And they don't need to get huge directors for it to be interesting. Imagine if someone like Rian Johnson directed an episode.

I just find it amazing that nobody has bothered to inject new life into the show for about 10 years.

In the show's prime, they used to have an unwritten rule that showrunning was like the presidency and nobody should serve more than two terms.

I honestly think that this was one of the biggest reasons that they show was able to thrive and remain so good for as long as it did.

Every showrunner brought something new to the table and they all built upon what was left before them.

Matt Groening, James L. Brooks and Sam Simon got the show up and running. Al Jean and Mike Reiss made it utterly hilarious. David Mirkin perfected it with even more interesting storylines and even funnier gags. Bill Oakley and Josh Weinstein decided to explore the characters on a more real level, which gave seasons 7 and 8 quite a distinctive flavour, but helped to prevent it from going stale. Then Mike Scully came along and produced arguably the worst season to date, season 9. Fair enough though, season 9 was still very, very good stuff and so was season 10, but he made things veer towards being more cartoony and silly.

Now, if someone else had come along for seasons 11 and 12, they might have addressed problems with the show. But instead, Mike Scully kept on at it for two more seasons and then they hired Al Jean again, presumably in a desperate effort to get someone from the show's golden years who could fix things, but he only made them worse and it felt like everyone making the show just stopped caring. Al Jean has been showrunning it ever since.

I'd be genuinely excited if someone else was given the gig.

I remember making this exact same argument here about 5 fucking years ago.

I disagree. While I love South Park, you have to remember that without The Simpsons, the other animated series on the air, including South Park and Futurama, wouldn't exist. And I think that most people would agree that The Simpsons Seasons 3-9 are better than most South Park episodes. But I respect your right to an opinion, unlike certain people.

I disagree. While I love South Park, you have to remember that without The Simpsons, the other animated series on the air, including South Park and Futurama, wouldn't exist. And I think that most people would agree that The Simpsons Seasons 3-9 are better than most South Park episodes. But I respect your right to an opinion, unlike certain people.

^ The Simpsons is definently more influential, but I think South Park is funnier- (with the exception of the last few seasons.)

I grew up with both, and experienced both show's "golden age" first hand. They're both very dear to me, though I also think they're beyond comparison. Different styles of humour, different objectives, different in so many ways... Apples and oranges, people. It's futile to even debate about.

Legal Notice & Disclaimer: "Futurama" TM and copyright FOX, its related entities and the Curiosity Company. All rights reserved. Any reproduction, duplication or distribution of these materials in any form is expressly prohibited. As a fan site, this Futurama forum, its operators, and any content on the site relating to "Futurama" are not explicitely authorized by Fox or the Curiosity Company.